According to a February legal filing petitioning the nation’s highest court, the NRA states that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, violated the First Amendment by pressuring banks and insurance companies to stop doing business with the organization. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling that dismissed the NRA’s 2018 lawsuit against Vullo. In the suit, the second amendment rights group said she retaliated against it after the Parkland shooting. The NRA says Vullo used “pressure tactics—including backchannel threats, ominous guidance letters, and selective enforcement of regulatory infractions—to induce banks and insurance companies to avoid doing business with” the organization.The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying it can pursue a lawsuit against a New York state official who pressured companies to stop doing business with it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
🚨BREAKING: @NRA Prevails at the Supreme Court!
Read the decision⬇️https://t.co/cAU9EvFEKY pic.twitter.com/f0LXKyGAUt
— NRA (@NRA) May 30, 2024 Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the Court, said today’s decision affirms that “government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” She added that the NRA has plausibly alleged Vullo violated the First Amedment by coercing government-regulated companies into dissociating with the group in order to punish or suppress firearm advocacy. The pressure campaign by New York’s Department of Financial Services was not a behind-the-scenes matter. At least two publicly-available letters show Vullo directing banks and insurance companies to lean on the “NRA or similar gun promotion organizations” and take retaliatory action aimed at hurting the groups’ business operations. Her letter to financial institutions cites “public health and safety” and “corporate social responsibility” as reasons for unconstitutional intervention, stating further her department “encourages its chartered and licensed financial institutions to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.” Similar language was used in a letter to insurers, telling them her department “encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to manage these risks and promote public health and safety. Vullo later fined three insurers more than $13 million for offering an NRA-backed product called “Carry Guard,” which provided liability coverage and legal assistance for individuals who carry firearms. Vullo has referred to the policy as “murder insurance.” A separate advocacy organization, Gun Owners of America, celebrated the Supreme Court ruling in a post on X: “If Maria Vullo had been successful at de-banking the NRA by weaponizing ‘reputational risk,’ then Gun Owners of America would surely have been the next target. We are thankful for this unanimous opinion from the Supreme Court!”
If Maria Vullo had been successful at de-banking the NRA by weaponizing “reputational risk,” then Gun Owners of America would surely have been the next target.
We are thankful for this unanimous opinion from the Supreme Court! https://t.co/mGqbz6E4mV pic.twitter.com/UF0tg4TWZG
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 30, 2024
